[HawaiianGecko]

 

You're statement that you are defending the constitution is pure fallacy.  In fact you are striving to defeat the constitution.  You are claiming the man is guilty with no proof and that it is he that must prove his innocence. That is in direct contradiction to U.S. Code. We have had at least 172 precedents, 43 presidents & 43 vice presidents times two (winning and losing) that have never had to demonstrate their qualifications to suit you & your over inflated ego personally. 

I find the narcissism that you personally are upholding the laws of our land while the entire GOP organization with millions of dollars and a sitting President all of whom spent the better part of two years to succeed at any cost aren't, to be appalling and extremely disturbing.  Go back to sucking your thumb newbie.

[Diggity]

The burden of proof is on Obama to prove he is eligible.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

“Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.”

[MHGinTN]

Barack Hussein Obama (if that is in fact his legal name) is applying for the job of President of MY REPUBLIC. I, as a member of We The People have a right to expect him to prodcue proof that he is in fact eligible by Constitutiopnal standard to be sworn in for the office. In this issue, it is upon the applicant to prove his eligibility. And just because Nancy Pelosi endorsed his application for election in each state does not stand as proof he is actually eligible.

[CaribouCrossing]

I may be a “newbie” on this forum, but I’m over 50 years old and have lived long enough to know that when someone is hiding something, there is something to hide.

Your defense against being concerned about Obama’s lack of being forthcoming and truthful about his past and his associations is that WE, THE PEOPLE, of the United States of America have to PROVE that he is eligible. That’s bullcrap.

The highest office in our nation is the presidency. Anyone who wants to become our President and Commander in Chief ought to respect us and our military enough to be upfront and truthful. Obama has not done that.

The fact remains that Obama does NOT want to provide us with his b.c. nor his other records. Why, HawaiianGecko, do YOU believe that Obama is spending so much money and effort to conceal his birth certificate and his other records?

[CaribouCrossing]

By the way, you might want to study up on “narcissim” and “Barack Obama”. It is not narcissistic to want to know everything about our so-called “president-elect”. Barack Obama is a walking, talking, extreme narcissist.

[wintertime]

We have had at least 172 precedents, 43 presidents & 43 vice presidents times two (winning and losing) that have never had to demonstrate their qualifications to suit you & your over inflated ego personally.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And...everyone of those presidents and vice presidents has dozens upon dozens of witnesses to their newborn infancy. These relatives friends and neighbors knew the mother and father, could point to the home or hospital where this presidential candidate was born. Many attended the christenings. In many cases there are photos of the newborn.

So?...Where are the friends, relatives, photos, and neighbors of Obama who can witness that they visited his mother in the hospital and saw him swaddled in a receiving blanket in the newborn nursery? Where are the witnesses who can name his obstetrician? Who witnessed his coming home from the hospital. Who visited the new mother and baby after his birth?

Geeze! I am in my 60 and there are still many in my life that could tell you that they saw me in the newborn nursery and attended my christening.

Given the **GROSS** lack of person history, lack of friends, neighbors, and other witnesses, it is not at all unreasonable to ask Obama to present a birth certificate. It is **NOT** a burden to present a $10 document. It is **HIGHLY ** suspicious to have multiple law firms blocking its release.

[CaribouCrossing]

Here’s a bit of reading for your “not a newbie” on FR, but a newbie in Psychology 101.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_enigma_of_obama.html

http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections

http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthread.php?t=103109

[pissant]

Bullshit. You apply for the job, you are responsible for proving your credentials for the job.

[utahagen]

“You are claiming the man is guilty with no proof and that it is he that must prove his innocence.” I have not asserted that Obama is guilty of any crime. I do assert, though, that Obama and everyone who runs for president must release valid copies of their birth certificates to demonstrate they meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office. I have submitted my own birth certificate many times in my life when starting a new job, getting a passport, etc. I didn’t think asking for my birth certificate meant anyone was accusing me of a crime and making me prove my innocence.